![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 02:11:11AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote: > > Rejected-by: Russell King 8) > > > > The reason is that now we're unable to find out if anyone's doing > > udelay(100000000000000000) which breaks on most architectures. > > > > There are a number of compile-time checks that your patch has removed > > which catch such things, and as such your patch is not acceptable. > > Some architectures have a lower threshold of acceptability for the > > maximum udelay value, so it's absolutely necessary to keep this. > > I don't recall seeing anyone trigger the check, and it hardly seems worth > adding a "few kb" to vmlinux for it? Maybe we can have both - would the space saving be achieved by just moving mdelay and ssleep out of linux/delay.h and not touching asm-i386/delay.h? -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-06-30 09:49 [W:0.822 / U:0.080 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||